CITY OF STURGIS INTEGRATING 20 YEARS OF

MAINTENANCE HISTORY INTO AN AMP

ASSET MANAGEMENT FROM PLAN TO PROGRAM -

JANUARY 25, 2017

Tom Sikorski – WWTP Superintendent Allen Gelderloos, PE – AMP Project Manager

Agenda

▪ Overview of Sturgis

▪ WWTP AMP ▪ Review of WWTP AMP Tasks

▪ Utilization of 20-Years of Maintenance History

▪ Collection System AMP

▪ Rate Study

Sturgis Michigan

▪Population: 10,900

▪Abbott Nutrition

▪Sturgis owns and operates a power plant to produce its own power since 1896 Sturgis

Sturgis WWTP

Headworks

Final Clarifiers

Polishing Pond

Chlor/Dechlor

Intermediate Clarifiers

Nitrification Tower

Primary Clarifiers Trickling Filters

Sludge Storage

Digesters

WWTP & Lift Station AMP Tasks

1. Asset Inventory

2. Condition Assessment

3. Business Risk Assessment

4. Capital Improvement Planning

5. Additional Tasks ▪ Performance Assessment

▪ Impact of Future Growth

Overview of AMP Project/Status

▪ City awarded ~$1,900,000 SAW grant from MDEQ

▪ Wastewater Treatment Plant and Collection System

▪ Draft AMPs completed

▪ Commission approved 3-year rate increase in August 2016

Asset Inventory

▪Started with existing CMMS inventory

▪Added additional assets ▪ Electrical

▪ Building/Roofs

▪Updated replacement costs

Condition Assessment

▪Based on operator input, visual inspection and review of CMMS

▪Detailed inspection reports for ▪ Process-related equipment

▪ Electrical equipment

▪ Buildings and roofs

▪ Sludge storage tank

Sludge Storage Tank cleaning for inspection

Business Risk Helps Define Maintenance and CIP Strategies

Business Risk Evaluation Results for WWTP

Co

nseq

uen

ce o

f F

ailu

re

High High Risk

6

High Risk

7

Extreme Risk

0

Medium Low Risk

44

Medium Risk

30

High Risk

39

Low Low Risk

131

Low Risk

190

Medium Risk

242

Low Medium High

Probability of Failure

Capital Improvement Planning

Existing CIP Projects

Confirm thru review of

Business Risk

Review Business Risk

to Identify CIP Projects

Review Remaining Assets: • >$10,000 • Near End of

Useful Life

Capital Improvement Projects

5 Year CIP &

6-20 Year CIP

Prioritize and Sequence Project Based on: • Staff Input

• Budget Constraints

Replacement

Fund Projects

Overview of Sturgis’ CMMS (Computerized Maint. Mmgt System)

▪ In 1990, City purchased Infor MP2

▪Most WWTP & lift station assets in system

▪Collection system on a separate MP2 system

▪Switched to Antero by Allmax in 2016 ▪ MP2 no longer being supported

▪ Investigated other facilities and evaluated trial system

▪ Antero determined to be more cost-effective to meet objectives

What is a Computerized Maintenance Management System?

▪Generate and track work orders

▪Historical record of past PMs/repairs

▪ Tracking of operator and maintenance staff time and material expenses

▪Operator training records

Benefits of CMMS

▪ Tracking of work orders ▪ Are all WOs being completed?

▪ % Emergency vs PM vs Corrective

▪ Improves annual budgeting process

▪ Justify new equipment purchases

▪ Justify annual equipment replacement costs

▪ Justify staffing levels

Justification of Staff Time thru Tracking

Annual Replacement Cost Justification

Asset

Category Category Description

Total Assets Repair and Maintenance Fund Replacement Fund for Assets <$10,000

Total No. of

Assets

(In Service)

Total Category

Replacement

Cost

Expected

Useful Life

(yrs)

Qty. of

Assets

Rehab Cost

(% of

Replace)

Rehab

Frequency

(yrs)

Annual Rehab

Related Costs

Qty. of

Assets

Total

Replacement

Cost

Annual

Replace-

Related Costs

AIRGAS Compressors; blowers 15 $38,498 10-15 15 $38,498 $3,433

ETRON Control panels & VFDs 37 $284,795 10-20 15 20% 10 $3,687 22 $100,425 $6,463

GRBX Gearboxes; Reducers 20 $266,897 30-50 20 5% 10 $1,334

HVAC Boilers; Fans; Blowers; MUAs;

Digester Heat Ex. 45 $233,724 10-20 43 20% 10 $3,115

INST Flow Meters; Level Sensors;

Samplers; Transducers 48 $99,546 10 48 $99,546 $10,573

LAB Lab equipment 29 $42,095 Various 29 $42,095 $5,302

MAINT Maintenance equipment,

building cranes 47 $700,392 10-20 10 20% 5 $3,632 36 $27,417 $2,690

MOTOR Motors 79 $152,756 10 10 10% 10 $598 69 $92,923 $9,285

PUMP Pumps 55 $774,118 10-20 55 30% 10 $23,224

SAFETY Sensors, backflow preventers,

flame traps, eye wash stns 40 $44,714 5-10 40 $44,714 $6,508

VALVE Valves (shorter life) 148 $482,301 25 26 5% 15 $987 122 $186,270 $7,451

Valves (longer life) 144 $867,801 30+ 24 5% 15 $1,658 120 $370,435 $12,348

Total (not all assets shown for clarity) 761 $13,029,711 225 $55,043 506 $64,593

CMMS Lessons Learned

▪Understand what you want to get out of it

▪Separate systems for WWTP and Collection Systems are OK

▪Work with CMMS company – they can make many of your desired improvements

▪Any system requires full commitment to get full benefits

Agenda

▪ Overview of Sturgis

▪ WWTP AMP ▪ Review of WWTP AMP Tasks

▪ Utilization of 20-Years of Maintenance History

▪ Collection System AMP

▪ Rate Study

1,759

210,443

39,997 24,619

10,934 13,086 15,758 5,516

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

6 in 8 in 10 in 12 in 15 in 18 in 21 in 24 in

Fee

t o

f G

ravi

ty S

ew

er

Collection System Statistics

Gravity Sewer Size

97,872

7,036

112,309

19,831 22,223

7,911 13,658

28,076 26,575

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1920 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Fee

t o

f G

ravi

ty S

ew

er 65% of the sewers

were constructed before 1960

Date of Installation

Of the 323,200 ft of gravity sewer, 65% is 8 inch diameter

Overview of Collection System AMP Activities 1. CCTV’ed 54 miles of collection system (85% of system)

2. F&V conducted hydraulic modeling to identify bottlenecks

3. F&V conducted flow monitoring for I/I

4. City conducted smoke testing to remove stormwater inflows into sanitary system

5. Developed short (5-year) and long term (6-20 year) CIPs

6. Completed Draft Asset Management Plan Report

Collection System Inspection Results

Sewer Condition

For 284,200 feet of pipeline analyzed

34%

18% 19%

20%

9%

Manhole Condition

For 1,262 manholes analyzed

Very Poor Excellent

40%

12%

22%

10%

16%

Collection System Rehab Model for Pipes and Manholes

▪ Innovyze model utilizes ▪ GIS utility data (pipe IDs, lengths, etc.)

▪ NASSCO condition scores (PACP/MACP)

▪ Consequence and likelihood of failure

▪ Rehab/replace costs

▪ Customizable rehab logic flow chart

▪ Model output includes risk-based, prioritized, capital improvements & PM recommendations:

▪ Inspection

▪ CCTV

▪ Point repair

▪ Lining

▪ Replace

Consequence of Failure – Gravity Lines COF No. Category Criteria Scoring Risk Weight

1 Intersection Railroad Within x ft F=0; T=10 xx%

2 Intersection, Road Type Within x ft State Route = 10 Alley = 0

xx%

3 Intersection: Stream, Lake or Wetland

Within x ft F=0; T=10 xx%

4 Intersection: Building Type Within x ft Emergency =10 Blank = 0

xx%

5 Pipe Diameter Diameter 36” = 10

6” = 2 xx%

6 User Defined Gravity Trunkline = 10 Intermediate = 5 Neighborhood = 0

xx%

Likelihood of Failure – Gravity Lines

LOF No. Category Criteria Scoring Risk Weight

1 Life Expectancy Cohort Analysis from Material and Install Date

<20% = 10 … >80% = 0

xx%

2 CCTV Score Rating Index 0-1 = 1 .. 4-5 = 10

xx%

3 Last Cleaned/TV’ed Date <1990 = 10

.. >2015 = 0

xx%

4 Failure/Maint History Manual Input 0 = 0; 1= 5; >1 = 10 xx%

5 Wet Weather Flows Gal/cap/day <100 = 0

>200 = 10 xx%

6 Hydraulic Analysis Percent Flowing Full 10-25% = 2 75-100% = 10

xx%

Risk Ratings Results

Business Risk Matrix by Number of Gravity & Force Main Pipes

Business Risk Matrix by Number of Manholes

Risk Ratings Define Rehab Actions

Collection System Risk

Rehabilitation Summary Table & Asset Risk Ratings

Asset ID Address Total CostNormalized

Risk

Size

(in)

Year

Constructe

Length

(ft)Rehab Actions Year

Manhole 951 101-133 M-66 $4,270.00 100 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 1

Gravity Main 3A98-3A25 103 N Prospect St $3,501.56 100 10 1924 70 Full Lining 1

Manhole 952 101-133 M-66 $4,270.00 96 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 1

Manhole 955 201 N Nottawa St $5,020.00 81 0 1924 0 MH Clean + Line + Repair 2

Manhole 10A14 116-121 S Nottawa St $4,270.00 78 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2

Gravity Main 1614-1613 101-199 Surprise Ave $16,666.81 75 8 1924 417 Full Lining 2

Manhole 1122 398 Florence St $4,270.00 74 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2

Manhole 1601 485 W Chicago Rd $4,270.00 70 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2

Manhole 3A02 119 N Monroe St $4,270.00 70 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2

Gravity Main 1619-1617 700 W Chicago Rd $22,767.47 70 10 1924 335External Point Repair + Full Lin 2

Gravity Main 1613-1603 501-599 W Chicago Rd $4,570.00 70 10 1924 115 Internal Point Repair 2

Gravity Main 19C34-19C33 350-398 Magnolia Ave $29,020.45 63 18 1924 363 Full Lining 2

Gravity Main 916-914 108 S Jefferson St $35,455.88 63 15 1924 507 Full Lining 2

Gravity Main 1601-916 307 W Chicago Rd $18,373.79 62 10 1924 367 Full Lining 2

Manhole 3A52 605-699 US-12 $4,270.00 60 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2

Gravity Main 10A90-10A89 1200-1298 Ivanhoe St $17,625.00 53 8 1952 291External Point Repair + Full Lin 2

Gravity Main 961-904 209 Pleasant St $8,892.30 50 8 1924 222 Full Lining 2

Gravity Main 19C46-19C44 400-410 Wenzel Ave $15,632.78 49 8 1924 391 Full Lining 2

Gravity Main 7A46-7A45 1005-1199 N Clay St $14,066.88 48 8 1956 352 Full Lining 2

Table 6. Capital Improvement Plan Summary Table: 1-2 Year Rehabilitation

This table only the represents the highest priority assets in the collection system

Collection System 1-2 Year CIP

Replace MH

Replace Sewer

Full Lining

Point Repair

Line/Repair MH

Lessons Learned 1. Need to critically review initial results and iterate, if

necessary ▪ Brick manhole example

2. CCTV is priceless - Many pipes & manholes past their useful life can be rehabbed (rather than replaced) to extend their life & reduce capital costs

Example of 100-year old manhole

Agenda

▪ Overview of Sturgis

▪ WWTP AMP ▪ Review of WWTP AMP Tasks

▪ Utilization of 20-Years of Maintenance History

▪ Collection System AMP

▪ Rate Study

Rate Study

▪ 5- and 20-Year CIPs for WWTP and collection system

▪ SAW Grant required “gap analysis” performed

Rate Study

▪ Sturgis’ City Commission requires and approves 3-year rate adjustments for water and wastewater

▪ Rate study included more comprehensive analysis ▪ Projected Cash Balance

▪ Adjusted Operating Income

▪ Debt Coverage Ratio

▪ Performed by UFS

Projected

Recommended

Major Finding: Cash balance

less than recommended

Recommended Rate Adjustment

▪ 2% rate increase per year for next 3 years ▪ To meet projected CIP and provide recommended cash balance

▪ Approved in August 2016

Summary

▪WWTP already performing Asset Management ▪ Benefitted from detailed inspections and CIP planning

▪ There are definite benefits to CMMS data for justification and projection of O&M and capital budget planning

▪ Innovyze is a powerful tool for CIP planning in collection system

▪ Prudent rate planning involves looking out 3 to 5 years and includes other financial indicators

THANK YOU

Allen Gelderloos, PE, Fleis and VandenBrink

▪ C: 616.430.9298

▪ E: agelderloos@fveng.com

Tom Sikorski, City of Sturgis WWTP Superintendent

▪ P: 269.659.7250

▪ E: tsikorski@Sturgismi.gov